Judgement

Appeal (No. 75 of 1930) from a decree of the Chief Court of Oudh in its appellate jurisdiction (April 29, 1929) which partly affirmed and partly reversed a decree of a single judge of that Court.

The respondent instituted a suit against the appellants claiming a declaration that he had been validly adopted by one Mahabir Bakhsh Singh, and that a deed of gift by the first appellant to the second appellant was not binding beyond the lifetime of the donor. Both Courts in India had held that the adoption was valid.

The question whether the deed of gift was valid beyond the lifetime of the donor depended upon whether under grants made by the Government in 1871 and 1875 to two brothers, they took jointly with survivorship or severally.

The facts appear from the judgment of the Judicial Committee.

As to the effect of the grants the Appellate Court (Stuart C.J. and Wazir Hasan J.), reversing the trial judge (Pullan J.), held that the grants conferred on each of the brothers an estate of inheritance. In the result the plaintiffs claim was allowed upon both points.

1932. Nov. 29. De Gruyther K.C. and Wallach for the appellants.

Sir Dawson Miller K.C., Dunne K.C., and Jinnah for the respondent were not called upon.

1933. Jan. 12. The judgment of their Lordships was delivered by

SIR JOHN WALLIS. The plaintiff instituted this suit in the Chief Court of Oudh for a declaration that he was the adopted son of Mahabir Bakhsh Singh, and that the deed of gift executed by the first defendant, who is the widow of Mahabirs elder brother, Mahesh Bakhsh Singh, in favour of the second defendant was not binding beyond her own lifetime. As the valuation of the suit proved to be under five lakhs of rupees it was insufficient to give the Oudh Chief Court original jurisdiction, and the plaint was amended by claiming reliefs as to other properties as well, but these claims are not the subject of this appeal, as they failed before Pullan J., the trial judge, and were given up at the hearing of the appeal in the Chief Court. Pullan J. gave the plaintiff a declaration as to the adoption, and otherwise dismissed the suit. The Chief Court modified this decree by giving the plaintiff a declaration as to the deed of gift as well. From this decree the defendants have preferred the present appeal.

The following pedigree will help to show how the suit arose —

RAJA HARDAT SINGH. |

| |

Mahesh = Bahu Rani, Mahabir = Mahadei

Bakhsh Singh | Defendant Bakhsh Singh | Kuar.

(died 1896). | No. 1. (died 1905). |

| |

Swami Bakhsh Singh Rajendra

(died 1899). Bakhsh Singh,

Plaintiff.

Hardat Singh, the Rajah of Bondi, having taken an active part in the mutiny, his estates, which had been confiscated under Lord Cannings Proclamation, were not restored to him, but were granted to the Maharajah of Kapurthala in consideration of his services, subject to the payment of a maintenance allowance of Rs. 250 a month to Hardat Singhs sons, Mahesh Bakhsh Singh and Mahabir Bakhsh Singh.

Subsequently, in the years 1871 and 1875, the Government granted the two brothers the seven villages, which are the subject of this appeal and are Nos. 2 to 8 in schedule I. of the plaint, by three grants the terms of which are set out in the certificate of August 22, 1877. The limitation in the grant of villages Nos. 2 to 4 of June 5, 1871, was to "you and your heirs," and subject to the due observance of the conditions of the grant the Government undertook to " maintain you and your heirs as proprietors of the above-mentioned estate." The grant of village No. 5 in the same year was limited to the two brothers, “their heirs executors administrators and assigns in full hereditary and transferable proprietary right." The grant of villages Nos. 6 to 8 dated August 22, 1877, was limited to the two brothers "and their heirs successors and assigns."

It is recited in the first grant that the Government had sanctioned a grant of five thousand acres of waste land to the two brothers for their maintenance and t